Real-world bike weights

[Birdthom]

It seems that a lot of pro tour bikes weigh in at the thick end of 8kg overall regardless of any permitted minimum limit (6.5kg?).

I thought I'd stick my bike on the scales to see what it came out at.

Trek 3.1 (entry level carbon)
58cm (large) frame
Shimano RS80 C24 wheels
Otherwise bog standard - ali stem, ali bars etc, standard heavy seat, 105-level running gear
23c tyres (clincher)
cadence sensor & small bike computer fitted
2x bottle cages (without bottles)
Rear light and reflector
Heavy boggo-level SPD pedals

That lot came in at 8.5kg overall, so it's probably an 8kg bike without all the bits of tat on it and with potential to go a fair bit lighter. I thought that was pretty good for an entry-level bike, and it might discourage me from spending £££ on dubious weight loss bits.

Any other real-world comparisons out there?

[TKF]

What do you weigh?

Is it more than your bike?

[Birdthom]

TKF said:

What do you weigh?

Is it more than your bike?

That's kind of the point I'm making - chucking £££ at lightweight bits seems rather futile given that the bike is already pretty light.

As it happens, I'm pretty scrawny and certainly not one of these 100kg guys you sometimes see on ultra-light bikes!

[Gizmoish]

I doubt that pro bikes are 8kg? UCI minimum is 6.99kg iirc. Maybe on a time trial but not up a mountain.

As a comparison, I've just weighed mine as it sits after yesterday's ride:

Cannondale CAAD8 - mid-high level aluminium, 54cm
OEM wheels, Schwalbe Lugano tyres
Shim M540 SPDs
Saddlebag with patches, levers, two CO2 bottles and adaptor

Suitcase scales make it 9.7kg. Not featherweight, and I'm pondering some lighter wheels, but certainly does the job.

[Barbarossa]

UCI minimum weight is 6.8kg. I would be surprised if the pros were riding bikes that weren't down to that weight - except for special events like Paris-Roubaix and maybe their TT bikes.

The difference the extra 1500g makes is probably not measurable for an average rider.

[Rouleur]

Cycling News publish detailed looks at pro's bikes including weights and they're usually somewhere between 7.5 and 7.8kg. Pros know that outside of mountain stages weight doesn't make much difference to anything, they favour stiffness, aero and durability.

[TKF]

Birdthom said:

That's kind of the point I'm making - chucking £££ at lightweight bits seems rather futile given that the bike is already pretty light.

There is a valid argument for having lighter wheels, particularly lighter rims. When you are going uphill you are effectively overcoming gravity pulling you back down so you are accelerating with every pedal stroke. And lighter rims have less inertia to get those accelerations going.

But in this country we're not riding up Cols so the difference is minuscule, no matter how much we try to persuade ourselves otherwise. Oh look, I got a Strava PB 3 seconds quicker! It must be those £800 wheels!

Then there is the valid argument for aero wheels. When you are going along at 20mph the top of the wheel is going 40mph forward and the bottom is going 40mph backward. If you can reduce the turbulent effect of the spokes by putting in solid al/cf then you cut through the air more easily.

Deeper wheels tend to be heavier on the rims so worse for hills/acceleration but actually better for maintaining speed due to the flywheel effect. But most people don't ride at 25mph+ averages where aero wheels make a difference.

People talk about wheels in terms of depth and/or weight but stiffness is almost never mentioned. But then in our sort of riding stiffness is again a tiny factor in performance.

Basically, until you are competing at a decent level, buy the wheels you think look best on your bike. Tell yourself they make you climb better or cut through the air more cleanly by all means but know deep down you are just buying bling.

<goes off to look at bling again>

[Matt_N]

My Tarmac in large with ultegra and a not particularly light wheel set comes in at just under 17.5lbs so just under 8kg.

My mates large SL4 with dura ace, light wheel set etc comes in at under 14.5lbs so just over 6.5kg!

[bert11]

Gizmoish said:

I doubt that pro bikes are 8kg? UCI minimum is 6.99kg iirc. Maybe on a time trial but not up a mountain.

As a comparison, I've just weighed mine as it sits after yesterday's ride:

Cannondale CAAD8 - mid-high level aluminium, 54cm
OEM wheels, Schwalbe Lugano tyres
Shim M540 SPDs
Saddlebag with patches, levers, two CO2 bottles and adaptor

Suitcase scales make it 9.7kg. Not featherweight, and I'm pondering some lighter wheels, but certainly does the job.

Hey I have the same bike and the luganos are quite heavy I think. Swapped them for Conti GP4000 (I think) which saves 200g total

[BadgerBenji]

There was a good article in Cyclist magazine last month about weight and what matters, and interestingly they said aerodynamics were more important. When you add in the cost of saving a few grammes here and there, it really doesn't get you much extra performance.

[okgo]

TKF is about right on this one.

1kg isn't going to make much difference anywhere here in the UK. Tiny marginal gains from kit, the biggest factor for weight is you, and the biggest aero factor is also you. Beyond that then yes you can get some free speed from the extra gear but its tiny in comparison to what you can do yourself.

[HurryUpAndWait]

TKF said:

...but know deep down you are just buying bling.

<goes off to look at bling again>

Nought wrong with that. Bling is good. However, I would add that I've only up-blinged when I think I've upped my own performance. Fatties with Cervelos look wrong in my book, but if it makes them happy, while I go past on my ex-hybrid alu Boardman, who am I to argue.

Fatties on Cervelos going past me, however - "show me the fking bling... me, need, need now!"

[Birdthom]

TKF said:

There is a valid argument for having lighter wheels, particularly lighter rims. When you are going uphill you are effectively overcoming gravity pulling you back down so you are accelerating with every pedal stroke. And lighter rims have less inertia to get those accelerations going.>

Hence the RS80s as my one and only upgrade so far. I'm going to try to do the rest with improving myself, but when that inevitably fails I'll probably start buying all the carbon tat I can get my hands on ;-)

[Gizmoish]

Birdthom said:

TKF said:

There is a valid argument for having lighter wheels, particularly lighter rims. When you are going uphill you are effectively overcoming gravity pulling you back down so you are accelerating with every pedal stroke. And lighter rims have less inertia to get those accelerations going.>

Hence the RS80s as my one and only upgrade so far. I'm going to try to do the rest with improving myself, but when that inevitably fails I'll probably start buying all the carbon tat I can get my hands on ;-)

Hence why I've been pondering wheels, same approach.

On the stiffness point... On a particularly shoddy section of road yesterday I was sure I could see the top of my front wheel vibrating laterally. I assume that the rear would be similar... need to check spoke tension.

[Birdthom]

Gizmoish said:

Hence why I've been pondering wheels, same approach.

On the stiffness point... On a particularly shoddy section of road yesterday I was sure I could see the top of my front wheel vibrating laterally. I assume that the rear would be similar... need to check spoke tension.

I've been pretty impressed with the RS80s, not 'oh my god it's amazing I'm 5mph faster everywhere' but they are a noticeable improvement and nicer to ride on. They were £319 and seem like pretty good VFM, I would guess you're getting pretty heavily into diminishing marginal returns after that but I don't have anything to base it on. They are much stiffer than the old standard wheels I had, and they are easier to get up to speed.

Probably the best bang for buck was swapping the standard heavy gripless tyres over to Conti GP4000s, that made a really surprising difference.

[otolith]

Makes a hell of a difference when you're loading them into the back of the car, though

(Still enjoying the road bike being 2/3 the weight of the MTB I'm used to!)

[Vladimir]

There's not really much of a downside to lightness on a road bike but overdo it on an MTB and you have a skittery, nervous and often rather weak PITA that makes riding awkward.

Went slightly OTT on my bike; narrow tyres, straight carbon bars, etc and it became a nightmare on some terrain. Slightly "de XCed it" with wider rubber, riser bars and a shorter stem then changed the frame and now it's put the fun back into riding. My MTB is around 23lbs. Not weighed my bog standard (apart from SPDs and RS10s that replaced the Mavics) Allez Elite but it's definitely fairly light considering it's pretty much entry level.

[itsnotarace]

My CAAD10 is 6.43 Kg / 14.17 lbs in full summer trim, it doesn't make me faster but it sure is lovely to ride and makes me smile like an idiot, which was the whole point of building it

[DeanR32]

What's the spec of your CAAD 10 mate? That's light!

I'll have to weigh my standard 10 105. All I know is the frame weighs 1150 g's

[anonymous-user]

HurryUpAndWait said:

Fatties on Cervelos

I weighed my bike last night, then me.
My bike is 1/11th what I weigh... I cant afford any upgrades so I am thinking I may have to consider that diet after all...